On 2017 Jan 05, Melissa Rethlefsen commented:

Upon reading this article, I came across a small detail that I am curious about. In the flow diagram (Figure 1), the authors note in the final step that they found 127 reports to 15 trials. Generally, I would interpret this as the authors having located 127 references that discuss 15 different trials. In other Cochrane reviews, this is often noted as X number of references to X number of studies, and then all of the references for each study are usually listed under the main study name in the included studies list. In this case, there appear to be only 15 references to 15 studies in the included studies list. Is this a typo in the flow diagram, or are the remaining 112 references that could have been ascribed to the 15 studies erroneously omitted?

On 2017 Jan 05, Melissa Rethlefsen commented:

Upon reading this article, I came across a small detail that I am curious about. In the flow diagram (Figure 1), the authors note in the final step that they found 127 reports to 15 trials. Generally, I would interpret this as the authors having located 127 references that discuss 15 different trials. In other Cochrane reviews, this is often noted as X number of references to X number of studies, and then all of the references for each study are usually listed under the main study name in the included studies list. In this case, there appear to be only 15 references to 15 studies in the included studies list. Is this a typo in the flow diagram, or are the remaining 112 references that could have been ascribed to the 15 studies erroneously omitted?